Values and preferences of men for undergoing prostate-specific antigen screening for prostate cancer: a systematic review.
ABSTRACT: To investigate men's values and preferences regarding prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening for prostate cancer.Systematic review.We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and grey literature up to 2 September 2017.Primary studies of men's values and preferences regarding the benefits and harms of PSA screening.Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias with a modified version of a risk of bias tool for values and preferences studies, the International Patient Decision Aid Standards instrument V.3 and the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool.We identified 4172 unique citations, of which 11 studies proved eligible. Five studies investigated PSA screening using a direct choice study design, whereas six used decisions aids displaying patient-important outcomes. The direct choice studies used different methodologies and varied considerably in the reporting of outcomes. Two studies suggested that men were willing to forego screening with a small benefit in prostate cancer mortality if it would decrease the likelihood of unnecessary treatment or biopsies. In contrast, one study reported that men were willing to accept a substantial overdiagnosis to reduce their risk of prostate cancer mortality. Among the six studies involving decision aids, willingness to undergo screening varied substantially from 37% when displaying a hypothetical reduction in mortality of 10 per 1000 men, to 44% when displaying a reduction in mortality of 7 per 1000. We found no studies that specifically investigated whether values and preferences differed among men with family history, of African descent or with lower socioeconomic levels.The variability of men's values and preferences reflect that the decision to screen is highly preference sensitive. Our review highlights the need for shared decision making in men considering prostate cancer screening.CRD42018095585.
Project description:Background Prostate cancer screening using prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing remains controversial. Trade-offs between the potential benefits and downsides of screening must be weighed by men deciding whether to participate in prostate cancer screening; little is known about benefit:harm trade-offs men are willing to accept. Methods/Design The Community Preferences for Prostate Cancer Screening (COMPASs) Study examines Australian men's preferences for prostate cancer screening using PSA testing. The aims are to (1) determine which factors influence men's decision to participate in prostate cancer screening or not and (2) determine the extent of trade-offs between benefits and harms that men are willing to accept in making these decisions. Quantitative methods will be used to assess men's preferences for PSA screening. Using data on the quantitative outcomes of PSA testing from the published literature, a discrete choice study will be designed to quantitatively assess men's preferences. A web-based survey will be conducted in approximately 1000 community respondents aged 40-69 years, stratified by family history of prostate cancer, to assess men's preferences for PSA testing. A mixed logit model will be used; model results will be expressed as parameter estimates (?) and the odds of choosing screening over no screening. Trade-offs between attributes will also be calculated. Ethics and Dissemination The COMPASs study has been approved by the University of Sydney, Human Research Ethics committee (Protocol number 13186). The results will be published in internal reports, in peer-reviewed scientific journals as well as via conference presentations.
Project description:For many men, the net benefit of prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) tests may be small. Many major medical organizations have issued recommendations for prostate cancer screening, stressing the need for shared decision making before ordering a test. The purpose of this study is to better understand associations between discussions about benefits and harms of PSA testing and uptake of the test among men aged ?40 years.Associations between pre-screening discussions and PSA testing were examined using self-reported data from the 2012 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Unadjusted prevalence of PSA testing was estimated and AORs were calculated using logistic regression in 2014.The multivariate analysis showed that men who had ever discussed advantages of PSA testing only or discussed both advantages and disadvantages were more likely, respectively, to report having had a test within the past year than men who had no discussions (p<0.001). In addition, men who had only discussed the disadvantages of PSA testing with their healthcare providers were more likely (AOR=2.75, 95% CI=2.00, 3.79) to report getting tested than men who had no discussions.Discussions of the benefits or harms of PSA testing are positively associated with increased uptake of the test. Given the conflicting recommendations for prostate cancer screening and increasing importance of shared decision making, this study points to the need for understanding how pre-screening discussions are being conducted in clinical practice and the role played by patients' values and preferences in decisions about PSA testing.
Project description:Patient preferences derived from an assessment of values can help inform the design of screening programs, but how best to do so, and whether such preferences differ cross-nationally, has not been well-examined. The objective of this study was to compare the values and preferences of Australian and US men for PSA (prostate specific antigen) screening.We used an internet based survey of men aged 50-75 with no personal or family history of prostate cancer recruited from on-line panels of a survey research organization in the US and Australia. Participants viewed information on prostate cancer and prostate cancer screening with PSA testing then completed a values clarification task that included information on 4 key attributes: chance of 1) being diagnosed with prostate cancer, 2) dying from prostate cancer, 3) requiring a biopsy as a result of screening, and 4) developing impotence or incontinence as a result of screening. The outcome measures were self reported most important attribute, unlabelled screening test choice, and labelled screening intent, assessed on post-task questionnaires.We enrolled 911 participants (US:456; AU:455), mean age was 59.7; 88.0% were white; 36.4% had completed at least a Bachelors' degree; 42.0% reported a PSA test in the past 12 months. Australian men were more likely to be white and to have had recent screening. For both US and Australian men, the most important attribute was the chance of dying from prostate cancer. Unlabelled post-task preference for the PSA screening-like option was greater for Australian (39.1%) compared to US (26.3%) participants (adjusted OR 1.68 (1.28-2.22)). Labelled intent for screening was high for both countries: US:73.7%, AUS:78.0% (p?=?0.308).There was high intent for PSA screening in both US and Australian men; fewer men in each country chose the PSA-like option on the unlabelled question. Australian men were somewhat more likely to prefer PSA screening. Men in both countries did not view the increased risk of diagnosis as a negative aspect, suggesting more work needs to be done on communicating the concept of overdiagnosis to men facing a PSA screening decision.This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01558583).
Project description:Whether early detection and treatment of prostate cancer (PCa) will reduce disease-related mortality remains uncertain. As a result, tools are needed to facilitate informed decision making. While there have been several decision aids (DAs) developed and tested, very few have included an exercise to help men clarify their values and preferences about PCa screening. Further, only one DA has utilized an interactive web-based format, which allows for an expansion and customization of the material. We describe the development of two DAs, a booklet and an interactive website, each with a values clarification component and designed for use in diverse settings.We conducted two feasibility studies to assess men's (45-70 years) Internet access and their willingness to use a web- vs. a print-based tool. The booklet was adapted from two previous versions evaluated in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and the website was created to closely match the content of the revised booklet. Usability testing was conducted to obtain feedback regarding draft versions of the materials. The tools were also reviewed by a plain language expert and the interdisciplinary research team. Feedback on the content and presentation led to iterative modifications of the tools.The feasibility studies confirmed that the Internet was a viable medium, as the majority of men used a computer, had access to the Internet, and Internet use increased over time. Feedback from the usability testing on the length, presentation, and content of the materials was incorporated into the final versions of the booklet and website. Both the feasibility studies and the usability testing highlighted the need to address men's informed decision making regarding screening.Informed decision making for PCa screening is crucial at present and may be important for some time, particularly if a definitive recommendation either for or against screening does not emerge from ongoing prostate cancer screening trials. We have detailed our efforts at developing print- and web-based DAs to assist men in determining how to best meet their PCa screening preferences. Following completion of our ongoing RCT designed to test these materials, our goal will be to develop a dissemination project for the more effective tool.NCT00623090.
Project description:Prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed non-skin cancer in men. Screening for prostate cancer is widely accepted; however concerns regarding the harms outweighing the benefits of screening exist. Although patient's play a pivotal role in the decision making process, men may not be aware of the controversies regarding prostate cancer screening. Therefore we aimed to describe men's attitudes, beliefs and experiences of prostate cancer screening.Systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies on men's perspectives of prostate cancer screening. Electronic databases and reference lists were searched to October 2016.Sixty studies involving 3,029 men aged from 18-89 years, who had been screened for prostate cancer by Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) or Digital Rectal Examination (DRE) and not screened, across eight countries were included. Five themes were identified: Social prompting (trusting professional opinion, motivation from family and friends, proximity and prominence of cancer); gaining decisional confidence (overcoming fears, survival imperative, peace of mind, mental preparation, prioritising wellbeing); preserving masculinity (bodily invasion, losing sexuality, threatening manhood, medical avoidance); avoiding the unknown and uncertainties (taboo of cancer-related death, lacking tangible cause, physiological and symptomatic obscurity, ambiguity of the procedure, confusing controversies); and prohibitive costs.Men are willing to participate in prostate cancer screening to prevent cancer and gain reassurance about their health, particularly when supported or prompted by their social networks or healthcare providers. However, to do so they needed to mentally overcome fears of losing their masculinity and accept the intrusiveness of screening, the ambiguities about the necessity and the potential for substantial costs. Addressing the concerns and priorities of men may facilitate informed decisions about prostate cancer screening and improve patient satisfaction and outcomes.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA) screening for early detection of prostate cancer (PCa) may prevent some cancer deaths, but also may miss some cancers or lead to unnecessary and potentially harmful treatment. Therefore, involving patients in decision-making about PSA screening is recommended. However, we know little about the attitude of men regarding participation in decisions about PSA screening and how to assess such attitudes. The purpose of this paper is to describe patient and public participation in the development of a national, web-based case vignette survey for studying men's view on participation in decision-making about PSA screening. METHODS:The project group developed a first draft plan for the survey, its vignettes and choice of measurements. This included multiple vignette variants representing various levels of patient participation in decision-making about PSA screening with different outcomes. Additionally, it included questions on respondents' satisfaction with imagined courses of health care, their propensity to initiate a malpractice complaint, their own health care experiences, socio-demography, personality, and preferences for control regarding health care decision-making. Following feedback from a workshop with academic peers on the draft plan, a group of 30 adult men was engaged to help develop case vignette versions and questionnaire items by providing feedback on structure, comprehension, response patterns, and time required to complete the survey. Furthermore, a panel of three patients with PCa experience was assembled to assist development through a separate review-and-feedback process. RESULTS:Based on reviews of survey drafts, the large group made further suggestions about construction of the survey (e.g. clarification and modification of case vignette versions, deletion of items and adjustment of wording, instructions to guide respondents, replacement of technical terms, and optimization of sequence of survey elements). The patient panel ensured fine-tuning of vignette versions and questionnaire items and helped review the internet version of the survey. CONCLUSIONS:Patient and public involvement during various phases of the survey development helped modify and refine survey structure and content. The survey exemplifies a way to measure health care users' satisfaction with imagined courses of health care and wish to complain, taking into account their characteristics.
Project description:OBJECTIVE:Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening is controversial. A community jury allows presentation of complex information and may clarify how participants view screening after being well-informed. We examined whether participating in a community jury had an effect on men's knowledge about and their intention to participate in PSA screening. DESIGN:Random allocation to either a 2-day community jury or a control group, with preassessment, postassessment and 3-month follow-up assessment. SETTING:Participants from the Gold Coast (Australia) recruited via radio, newspaper and community meetings. PARTICIPANTS:Twenty-six men aged 50-70 years with no previous diagnosis of prostate cancer. INTERVENTION:The control group (n=14) received factsheets on PSA screening. Community jury participants (n=12) received the same factsheets and further information about screening for prostate cancer. In addition, three experts presented information on PSA screening: a neutral scientific advisor provided background information, one expert emphasised the potential benefits of screening and another expert emphasised the potential harms. Participants discussed information, asked questions to the experts and deliberated on personal and policy decisions. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES:Our primary outcome was change in individual intention to have a PSA screening test. We also assessed knowledge about screening for prostate cancer. RESULTS:Analyses were conducted using intention-to-treat. Immediately after the jury, the community jury group had less intention-to-screen for prostate cancer than men in the control group (effect size=-0.6 SD, p=0.05). This was sustained at 3-month follow-up. Community jury men also correctly identified PSA test accuracy and considered themselves more informed (effect size=1.2 SD, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Evidence-informed deliberation of the harms and benefits of PSA screening effects men's individual choice to be screened for prostate cancer. Community juries may be a valid method for eliciting target group input to policy decisions. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12612001079831).
Project description:Professional societies recommend shared decision making (SDM) for prostate cancer screening, however, most efforts have promoted informed rather than shared decision making. The objective of this study is to 1) examine the effects of a prostate cancer screening intervention to promote SDM and 2) determine whether framing prostate information in the context of other clearly beneficial men's health services affects decisions.We conducted two separate randomized controlled trials of the same prostate cancer intervention (with or without additional information on more clearly beneficial men's health services). For each trial, we enrolled a convenience sample of 2 internal medicine practices, and their interested physicians and male patients with no prior history of prostate cancer (for a total of 4 practices, 28 physicians, and 128 men across trials). Within each practice site, we randomized men to either 1) a video-based decision aid and researcher-led coaching session or 2) a highway safety video. Physicians at each site received a 1-hour educational session on prostate cancer and SDM. To assess intervention effects, we measured key components of SDM, intent to be screened, and actual screening. After finding that results did not vary by trial, we combined data across sites, adjusting for the random effects of both practice and physician.Compared to an attention control, our prostate cancer screening intervention increased men's perceptions that screening is a decision (absolute difference +41%; 95% CI 25 to 57%) and men's knowledge about prostate cancer screening (absolute difference +34%; 95% CI 19% to 50%), but had no effect on men's self-reported participation in shared decisions or their participation at their preferred level. Overall, the intervention decreased screening intent (absolute difference -34%; 95% CI -50% to -18%) and actual screening rates (absolute difference -22%; 95% CI -38 to -7%) with no difference in effect by frame.SDM interventions can increase men's knowledge, alter their perceptions of prostate cancer screening, and reduce actual screening. However, they may not guarantee an increase in shared decisions.#NCT00630188.
Project description:BACKGROUND: Screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) can reduce prostate cancer mortality, but may advance diagnosis and treatment in time and lead to overdetection and overtreatment. We estimated benefits and adverse effects of PSA screening for individuals who are deciding whether or not to be screened. METHODS: Using a microsimulation model, we estimated lifetime probabilities of prostate cancer diagnosis and death, overall life expectancy and expected time to diagnosis, both with and without screening. We calculated anticipated loss in quality of life due to prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment that would be acceptable to decide in favour of screening. RESULTS: Men who were screened had a gain in life expectancy of 0.08 years but their expected time to diagnosis decreased by 1.53 life-years. Of the screened men, 0.99% gained on average 8.08 life-years and for 17.43% expected time to diagnosis decreased by 8.78 life-years. These figures imply that the anticipated loss in quality of life owing to diagnosis and treatment should not exceed 4.8%, for screening to have a positive effect on quality-adjusted life expectancy. CONCLUSION: The decision to be screened should depend on personal preferences. The negative impact of screening might be reduced by screening men who are more willing to accept the side effects from treatment.
Project description:CONTEXT:Although screening recommendations for prostate cancer using prostate-specific antigen testing often include shared decision making, the effect of patient decision aids on patients' intention and uptake is unclear. This study aimed to review the effect of decision aids on men's screening intention, screening utilization, and the congruence between intentions and uptake. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION:Data sources were searched through April 6, 2018, and included MEDLINE, Scopus, CENTRAL, CT.gov, Cochrane report, PsycARTICLES, PsycINFO, and reference lists. This study included RCTs and observational studies of decision aids that measured prostate screening intention or behavior. The analysis was completed in April 2018. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS:Eighteen studies (13 RCTs, four before-after studies, and one non-RCT) reported data on screening intention for ?8,400 men and screening uptake for 2,385 men. Compared with usual care, the use of decision aids in any format results in fewer men (aged ?40 years) planning to undergo prostate-specific antigen testing (risk ratio=0.88, 95% CI=0.81, 0.95, p=0.006, I2=66%, p<0.001, n=8). Many men did not follow their screening intentions during the first year after using a decision aid; however, most men who were planning to undergo screening did so (probability that men who wanted to be screened would receive screening was 95%). CONCLUSIONS:Integration of decision aids in clinical practice may result in a decrease in the number of men who elect prostate-specific antigen testing, which may in turn reduce screening uptake. To ensure high congruence between intention and screening utilization, providers should not delay the shared decision-making discussion after patients use a decision aid.